Author
Topic: Did we land on the moon? (Read 202925 times)

another_someone

It seems to me that these "expositions" of "hoax" of any kind, from a nation against another, are not so usual. Does it mean that "hoaxes" of any kind don't happen? It would be naive to think it. The fact russians didn't say anything about John Kennedy murder, means we can be sure 100% there wasn't any conspiracy to kill JFK?

The intelligence services don't really like their masters letting the other side know what information they have access to, lest it cause that source of information to dry up (I suspect the US intelligence community were less than happy when President Reagan went public on the Korean airliner downed by the Russians, since it alerted the Russians to the monitoring they were undertaking of their airforce.

Logged

another_someone

I don't understand what you mean. The Apollo 13 mission didn't land on the moon. This, to me, is a reason more to conclude they still didn't have the knowledge/technology/preparation for a moon-landing.

It did not land on the moon, but it was equipped to land on the moon, and more critically, it was publicised that it would land on the moon.

The point is that information about a disaster was coming in in almost real time, and this indicated that there was not very strict controls on the information coming back from the moon missions (certainly not tight enough control of information to allow a cover up of a non-landing on the moon, otherwise they would have covered up the disaster as well).

If Apollo 13 had not been subject to a disaster, then how would they have explained when we were receiving information that it was on its way to the moon, but never got there? The only way they could have done that is if Apollo 13 never existed, but then if it never existed, then how did it come to have a disaster?

To compare the apolo missions with the JFK death like this"It seems to me that these "expositions" of "hoax" of any kind, from a nation against another, are not so usual. Does it mean that "hoaxes" of any kind don't happen? It would be naive to think it. The fact russians didn't say anything about John Kennedy murder, means we can be sure 100% there wasn't any conspiracy to kill JFK?" seems patently absurd.The Russians weren't there to see Kennedy shot. They were in a position to observe the moon landings- at least to track the radio transmissions.All you are doing is adding to the number of people who would have had to be "in on the conspiracy". It's unrealistic to think it would have been kept secret all this time; adding more people "in the know" just makes it less plausible.

Logged

paul.fr

All you are doing is adding to the number of people who would have had to be "in on the conspiracy". It's unrealistic to think it would have been kept secret all this time; adding more people "in the know" just makes it less plausible.

I have to say, this is my own personal answer too. Do you really think all of those at mission control, plus the Astronauts, ground crew...and not to mention the wives could have kept silent all those years?

Can I add to this debate by discussing the Space Shuttle. The Shuttle is a very versatile piece of equipment, highly manouvarable within Earth orbit, it can seek out and repair any orbitting satalite. When the NASA Apollo missions first went to the moon, firsty they orbitted the Earth then at the critical time fired a rocket which took them out of orbit and on a trajectory that took them to the moon. Can I ask why the Shuttle being so much more advanced has never undertaken such an ordeal?Ask NASA why the Shuttle has never been to the moon?..maff

The space shuttle could if required reach the moon and return and all it would need to do so is use some of its cargo space as fuel storage .However the shuttle is not designed to travel beyond the earths magnetisphere. If it were to travel beyond the magnetisphere the astronauts and equiptment in the shuttle could be bit by large levels of cosmic paticle's and radiation significatly reducing the lifespan of the astronauats and the shuttle.

I don't understand what you mean. The Apollo 13 mission didn't land on the moon. This, to me, is a reason more to conclude they still didn't have the knowledge/technology/preparation for a moon-landing.

It did not land on the moon, but it was equipped to land on the moon, and more critically, it was publicised that it would land on the moon.The point is that information about a disaster was coming in in almost real time, and this indicated that there was not very strict controls on the information coming back from the moon missions (certainly not tight enough control of information to allow a cover up of a non-landing on the moon, otherwise they would have covered up the disaster as well).If Apollo 13 had not been subject to a disaster, then how would they have explained when we were receiving information that it was on its way to the moon, but never got there? The only way they could have done that is if Apollo 13 never existed, but then if it never existed, then how did it come to have a disaster?

Maybe not even Apollo 13 mission was really equipped/prepared to land on the Moon, and only a few people knew it (not the astronauts), and someone intentionally sabotated the mission in order to avoid a bad impression to the world. Why that stupid order from the mission control to mix the liquified oxygen in the cylinders? That was the cause of the explosion. Just an accident?

To compare the apolo missions with the JFK death like this"It seems to me that these "expositions" of "hoax" of any kind, from a nation against another, are not so usual. Does it mean that "hoaxes" of any kind don't happen? It would be naive to think it. The fact russians didn't say anything about John Kennedy murder, means we can be sure 100% there wasn't any conspiracy to kill JFK?" seems patently absurd.The Russians weren't there to see Kennedy shot. They were in a position to observe the moon landings- at least to track the radio transmissions.All you are doing is adding to the number of people who would have had to be "in on the conspiracy". It's unrealistic to think it would have been kept secret all this time; adding more people "in the know" just makes it less plausible.

This picture:http://xoomer.alice.it/911_subito/studio3.jpgshows glowing metal from the ruins of the North Tower of WTC, 16 days after 11.09.2001.The metal's colour denote a temperature ranging 845 - 1000°C. What heated the metal to such temperature?

Can I add to this debate by discussing the Space Shuttle. The Shuttle is a very versatile piece of equipment, highly manouvarable within Earth orbit, it can seek out and repair any orbitting satalite. When the NASA Apollo missions first went to the moon, firsty they orbitted the Earth then at the critical time fired a rocket which took them out of orbit and on a trajectory that took them to the moon. Can I ask why the Shuttle being so much more advanced has never undertaken such an ordeal?Ask NASA why the Shuttle has never been to the moon?..maff

The space shuttle could if required reach the moon and return and all it would need to do so is use some of its cargo space as fuel storage .However the shuttle is not designed to travel beyond the earths magnetisphere. If it were to travel beyond the magnetisphere the astronauts and equiptment in the shuttle could be bit by large levels of cosmic paticle's and radiation significatly reducing the lifespan of the astronauats and the shuttle.

Can I add to this debate by discussing the Space Shuttle. The Shuttle is a very versatile piece of equipment, highly manouvarable within Earth orbit, it can seek out and repair any orbitting satalite. When the NASA Apollo missions first went to the moon, firsty they orbitted the Earth then at the critical time fired a rocket which took them out of orbit and on a trajectory that took them to the moon. Can I ask why the Shuttle being so much more advanced has never undertaken such an ordeal?Ask NASA why the Shuttle has never been to the moon?..maff

The space shuttle could if required reach the moon and return and all it would need to do so is use some of its cargo space as fuel storage .However the shuttle is not designed to travel beyond the earths magnetisphere. If it were to travel beyond the magnetisphere the astronauts and equiptment in the shuttle could be bit by large levels of cosmic paticle's and radiation significatly reducing the lifespan of the astronauats and the shuttle.

So how did the Apollo missions avoid the cosmic particles?

They didnt , at the time they were just a theory. It wasnt until the astronauts reported that they were seeing flashes when they closed their eyes that someone realised what was causing them.

When they then looked at thier helmets under a electron microsocpe they saw the hole's they made as they passed through. pic below

another_someone

Maybe not even Apollo 13 mission was really equipped/prepared to land on the Moon, and only a few people knew it (not the astronauts), and someone intentionally sabotated the mission in order to avoid a bad impression to the world. Why that stupid order from the mission control to mix the liquified oxygen in the cylinders? That was the cause of the explosion. Just an accident?

Are you saying that you think that the Apollo 13 astronauts may have erroneously believed that the astronauts of Apollo 11 and Apollo 12 reached the moon, while despite the close nit community that is the world the astronouts live in (one of the crew of Apollo 13 was backup for Apollo 11), none of the crew of Apollo 11 or Apollo 12 enlightened the crew of Apollo 13 that they would never get to the moon?

In any case, why sabotage only Apollo 13, and not any of the other 5 Apollo missions that claim to have successfully landed on the moon after the Apollo 11 mission.

Maybe not even Apollo 13 mission was really equipped/prepared to land on the Moon, and only a few people knew it (not the astronauts), and someone intentionally sabotated the mission in order to avoid a bad impression to the world. Why that stupid order from the mission control to mix the liquified oxygen in the cylinders? That was the cause of the explosion. Just an accident?

Are you saying that you think that the Apollo 13 astronauts may have erroneously believed that the astronauts of Apollo 11 and Apollo 12 reached the moon, while despite the close nit community that is the world the astronouts live in (one of the crew of Apollo 13 was backup for Apollo 11), none of the crew of Apollo 11 or Apollo 12 enlightened the crew of Apollo 13 that they would never get to the moon?

In any case, why sabotage only Apollo 13, and not any of the other 5 Apollo missions that claim to have successfully landed on the moon after the Apollo 11 mission.

Before Apollo 13, only Apollo 11 and Apollo 12 missions claimed to have landed on the Moon. Apollo 14 mission started 9 months after Apollo 13, so they could have had the time to prepare a Real Moon landing.

Logged

another_someone

Before Apollo 13, only Apollo 11 and Apollo 12 missions claimed to have landed on the Moon. Apollo 14 mission started 9 months after Apollo 13, so they could have had the time to prepare a Real Moon landing.

That, at very least, means that one would have to acknowledge that the statement "We never landed on the moon" is incorrect, and at most, the claim is only that Apollo 11 never landed on the moon.

Nonetheless, I think it improbable that the astronauts on Apollo 13, one of whom was a backup astronaut for Apollo 11, were not aware of the success or failure of the preceding missions (some of which returned data that allowed improvements to future missions).

Before Apollo 13, only Apollo 11 and Apollo 12 missions claimed to have landed on the Moon. Apollo 14 mission started 9 months after Apollo 13, so they could have had the time to prepare a Real Moon landing.

That, at very least, means that one would have to acknowledge that the statement "We never landed on the moon" is incorrect, and at most, the claim is only that Apollo 11 never landed on the moon.

And Apollo 12.

Quote

Nonetheless, I think it improbable that the astronauts on Apollo 13, one of whom was a backup astronaut for Apollo 11, were not aware of the success or failure of the preceding missions (some of which returned data that allowed improvements to future missions).

I may be missing something here. Does anyone understand lightarrow's post "Quote from: Bored chemist on 15/07/2007 15:03:55To compare the apolo missions with the JFK death like this"It seems to me that these "expositions" of "hoax" of any kind, from a nation against another, are not so usual. Does it mean that "hoaxes" of any kind don't happen? It would be naive to think it. The fact russians didn't say anything about John Kennedy murder, means we can be sure 100% there wasn't any conspiracy to kill JFK?" seems patently absurd.The Russians weren't there to see Kennedy shot. They were in a position to observe the moon landings- at least to track the radio transmissions.All you are doing is adding to the number of people who would have had to be "in on the conspiracy". It's unrealistic to think it would have been kept secret all this time; adding more people "in the know" just makes it less plausible.

This picture:http://xoomer.alice.it/911_subito/studio3.jpgshows glowing metal from the ruins of the North Tower of WTC, 16 days after 11.09.2001.The metal's colour denote a temperature ranging 845 - 1000°C. What heated the metal to such temperature?"

I may be missing something here. Does anyone understand lightarrow's post "Quote from: Bored chemist on 15/07/2007 15:03:55To compare the apolo missions with the JFK death like this"It seems to me that these "expositions" of "hoax" of any kind, from a nation against another, are not so usual. Does it mean that "hoaxes" of any kind don't happen? It would be naive to think it. The fact russians didn't say anything about John Kennedy murder, means we can be sure 100% there wasn't any conspiracy to kill JFK?" seems patently absurd.The Russians weren't there to see Kennedy shot. They were in a position to observe the moon landings- at least to track the radio transmissions.All you are doing is adding to the number of people who would have had to be "in on the conspiracy". It's unrealistic to think it would have been kept secret all this time; adding more people "in the know" just makes it less plausible.

This picture:http://xoomer.alice.it/911_subito/studio3.jpgshows glowing metal from the ruins of the North Tower of WTC, 16 days after 11.09.2001.The metal's colour denote a temperature ranging 845 - 1000°C. What heated the metal to such temperature?"

Yes, I can become cryptic sometimes. I often prefer to go directly to a question, instead of making a lot of reasonings. The relation from the two things is: do American government or CIA or others high-level american institutions always say the truth? Let's take WTC collapse. What was its real origin? There are no mysteries about it? If we can have the doubt the someone could have put explosive charges on the buildings and the government or CIA ecc have covered it, then we can, with much more reasons, have a lot of doubts on many other claims, as to have gone to the Moon with Apollo 11.

I know very few people who seriously doubt that the wtc collapse was due to some **** crashing an aircraft full of fuel into it. I also know no people who can reliably judge colour temperature from a video recording without a lot of complex calibration. I also know that a burning candle-wax flame can reach well over 1000C.As far as I'm aware there are no real questions about the WTC collapse and no real questions about the manned moon missions.On the related matter of do governments lie?- Yes they certainly do.For example the combined "sexed up dossier" that led to the war in Iraq (anyone seen any WMDs?) was certainly cooked up by those high up in the government and/ or security services. It was found out as nonsense in a matter of weeks.Govenments are quite good at lying; they are really bad at getting away with it. The idea that they got away with faking the moon landings (and that the Russians are "in on it" or missed their biggest propaganda oportunity for decades) is, at least in my opinion, unrealistic.All the Russians needed to say was something like "we have a radio telescope like our peace-loving friends at Jodrell bank in the UK. Normally we use it for looking at the cosmos. Today we pointed it at the moon, and guess what- there's no signal from the Americans because they aren't there."They didn't need to admit to any military stuff at all and the farce it would have made of America would have been priceless.

I know very few people who seriously doubt that the wtc collapse was due to some **** crashing an aircraft full of fuel into it.

These skyscrapers didn't collapse:http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/highrisefires.htmlAnd what about WTC building 7? Why did it collapse? It was just hit in small parts from the collapsing towers and there was a little fire inside. Why did it (as the towers) collapse in a perfect vertical line? Why during its collapse the smoke "puffs" comes out of the windows from down up and not the opposite?

Quote

I also know no people who can reliably judge colour temperature from a video recording without a lot of complex calibration. I also know that a burning candle-wax flame can reach well over 1000C.

When there is enough oxygen for a complete cobustion, not the case of the WTC fire (black smoke).

Quote

As far as I'm aware there are no real questions about the WTC collapse and no real questions about the manned moon missions.On the related matter of do governments lie?- Yes they certainly do.For example the combined "sexed up dossier" that led to the war in Iraq (anyone seen any WMDs?) was certainly cooked up by those high up in the government and/ or security services. It was found out as nonsense in a matter of weeks.Govenments are quite good at lying; they are really bad at getting away with it. The idea that they got away with faking the moon landings (and that the Russians are "in on it" or missed their biggest propaganda oportunity for decades) is, at least in my opinion, unrealistic.All the Russians needed to say was something like "we have a radio telescope like our peace-loving friends at Jodrell bank in the UK. Normally we use it for looking at the cosmos. Today we pointed it at the moon, and guess what- there's no signal from the Americans because they aren't there.

They could have launched signals from outside the Moon.

Logged

another_someone

Govenments are quite good at lying; they are really bad at getting away with it.

This is a nonsense statement. Lies that governments get away with are the one's you don't know about, so how can you possibly judge how good or bad they are at getting away with lies. You can certainly say they have been caught out with lots of misinformation, and a good few lies (some other cases which we cannot show if it is a lie or just blatant stupidity), but there is absolutely no way you can say how many lies they have got away with.

The idea that they got away with faking the moon landings (and that the Russians are "in on it" or missed their biggest propaganda oportunity for decades) is, at least in my opinion, unrealistic.All the Russians needed to say was something like "we have a radio telescope like our peace-loving friends at Jodrell bank in the UK. Normally we use it for looking at the cosmos. Today we pointed it at the moon, and guess what- there's no signal from the Americans because they aren't there."

I think it very unlikely that the Russians would taken such an overt action on the matter. If they were going to act at all, then they would probably have someone else release the information on their behalf, without tracing its origin.

Nonetheless, I do agree, that for any lie to succeed, its primary requirement is that the number of people who know it is a lie must be absolutely minimal; and all the suggestions so far is for a conspiracy of such massive proportions as to make it wholly untennable.

You could quite easily keep the people who know about the hoax to a minimum. That would be the Astronauts, the folk in Groomlake where the filming was done who are sworn to secrecy anyway and a couple in the control room. People in the control room respond to what they see and hear. You feed them data they want to see and they'll respond positive. Time delay for the transmissions is easy, the Lunar spacecraft was in orbit all the time it was supposed to be on the moon. Bounce the signal around a few Earth stations then to the control room and you've cracked it.Or just build an electronic delay device for that matter.The Hubble is capable of seeing the stuff left on the Moon but do they show us? - No.They would have had egg on their face if Kennedy's promise of putting a man on the moon before the end of the decade hadn't materialized especially after letting the Ruskies win the first round.No ISO 400 film can survive the REMS in direct sunlight on the Moon - thats a fact. No glass can survive going into direct sunlight on the Moon of 200 degrees then be subject to a 400 degree temp change going into the shade. Thats the helmets and camera lenses smashed. Jesus you can't give a Pyrex dish 80 degrees instant temp variation without shattering it here on Earth never mind 400 degrees.It's absolute utter hogwash. Use your loaf...maff

Logged

another_someone

You could quite easily keep the people who know about the hoax to a minimum. That would be the Astronauts, the folk in Groomlake where the filming was done who are sworn to secrecy anyway and a couple in the control room.

You are missing all the people responsible for creating the sophisticated hardware for it all.

What about the families of these people. People who are trained in intelligence may be good at lying to their families, but these people were not from the intelligence community, and did not necessarily have the psyche to be able to lie to their waves and family about their experiences.

Personally, if I was going to generate such an illusion, I would not have had anyone leave the Earth at all - it just creates complexities and risks. So why have astronauts involved at all?

Ofcourse, if we had no space missions, then we would never have had the Apollo 13 incident.

You could quite easily keep the people who know about the hoax to a minimum. That would be the Astronauts, the folk in Groomlake where the filming was done who are sworn to secrecy anyway and a couple in the control room.

You are missing all the people responsible for creating the sophisticated hardware for it all.

What about the families of these people. People who are trained in intelligence may be good at lying to their families, but these people were not from the intelligence community, and did not necessarily have the psyche to be able to lie to their waves and family about their experiences.

Personally, if I was going to generate such an illusion, I would not have had anyone leave the Earth at all - it just creates complexities and risks. So why have astronauts involved at all?

Ofcourse, if we had no space missions, then we would never have had the Apollo 13 incident.

They used ISO 400-bog standard. Cannot possibly withstand the microwave radiation on the Moon. If you don't believe this stick your ISO 400 film on defrost in a microwave oven -about the same as the Moon, then try to develop it.Your having a laugh buddy.The glass in the camera's they used was bog standard lens glass - again your having a laugh buddy.Cannot withstand the temp variation on the moon - no possible and variable way of doing so.Don't try and kid us with modern glass specs, it don't workI know - your doing it for a laugh...maff

Logged

another_someone

They used ISO 400-bog standard. Cannot possibly withstand the microwave radiation on the Moon. If you don't believe this stick your ISO 400 film on defrost in a microwave oven -about the same as the Moon, then try to develop it.

Where do you get these microwaves powers from?

It you put your hand in a microwave oven, it would not do it much good either?

In fact, since they were using modified Hasselblad 500EL cameras, with solid metal bodies, I doubt that much microwave would have reached the film, even if it was in a microwave filled environment.

The film they were using was 70mm (twice the standard 35mm that we would normally use).

There was nothing bog standard about the camera or the film, although it was based on a bog standard camera, if you would ever consider a Hasselblad to be bog standard (I wish I could afford something like that as bog standard).

Your having a laugh buddy.The glass in the camera's they used was bog standard lens glass - again your having a laugh buddy.Cannot withstand the temp variation on the moon - no possible and variable way of doing so.Don't try and kid us with modern glass specs, it don't workI know - your doing it for a laugh...maff

OK - I was trying to work out what it was you were exactly referring to.

Firstly, the temperature differences on the moon are no different from temperature differences in space, so that in the wider context, that same temperature differences have to be tolerated in space too.

Secondly, the temperatures you are talking about are due to radiation, and not convection or conduction. As such, although you are correct that if left indefinitely in that environment, the temperatures will reach equilibrium at those temperatures, but it will be a very slow process to do so (the camera bodies will not give off much radiation, and so will take a very long time to cool down to those temperatures).

In any case, as I said above, the cameras were modified, and simply painting them white would have helped protect against radiation (although what I have seen of cameras purporting to be replicas of said cameras, they were not white, so I can only imagine that they felt radiation (light and infra-red) was not considered such a serious problem - although it seems that the data camera was painted silver for just such a reason.

The Data Camera, like the other two 500ELs, was a modified standard 500EL camera but differed from the others in several ways:

(1) The Data Camera was fitted with a so-called Reseau plate. The Reseau plate was made of glass and was fitted to the back of the camera body, extremely close to the film plane. The plate was engraved with a number of crosses to form a grid. The intersections were 10 mm apart and accurately calibrated to a tolerance of 0.002 mm. Except for the larger central cross, each of the four arms on a cross was 1 mm long and 0.02 mm wide. The crosses are recorded on every exposed frame and provided a means of determining angular distances between objects in the field-of-view.

(2) The Data Camera was fitted with a new Zeiss lens, a Biogon f-5.6/60 mm, specially designed for NASA, which later became available commercially. Careful calibration tests were performed with the lens fitted in the camera in order to ensure high-quality, low-distortion images. Furthermore, the lens of the camera was fitted with a polarizing filter which could easily be detached.

(3) The Data Camera was given a silver finish to make it more resistant to thermal variations that ranged from full Sun to full shadow helping maintain a more uniform internal temperature. The two magazines carried along with the Data Camera also had silver finishes. Each was fitted with a tether ring so that a cord could be attached when the Lunar Module Pilot lowered the mated magazine and camera from the lunar module to the Commander standing on the lunar surface. The exposed magazines were hoisted the same way.

(4) The Data Camera was modified to prevent accumulation of static electricity. When film is wound in a camera, static electricity is generated on the film surface. Normally, this electricity is dispersed by the metal rims and rollers that guide the film, and by the humidity of the air. In a camera fitted with a Reseau plate, however, the film is guided by the raised edges of the plate. As glass is a non-conductor, the electric charge that builds up at the glass surface can become so heavy that sparks can occur between plate and film - especially if the camera is used in a very dry environment or in vacuum. Sparks cause unpleasant patterns to appear on the film and can be a hazard if the camera is used in an atmosphere of pure oxygen. To conduct the static electricity away from the Reseau plate in the Data Camera, the side of the plate facing the film is coated with an extremely thin conductive layer which is led to the metallic parts of the camera body by two contact springs. Contact is effected by two projecting silver deposits on the conductive layer. The Reseau plate, or register glass, is not a new development in photography. What is most remarkable, however, is that the group of Hasselblad staff working on NASA camera projects in collaboration with Carl Zeiss was successful in applying the idea to a small camera - like the Hasselblad 500EL Data Camera. This camera is not only useful in space photography, it is particularly suitable for all kinds of aerial photography. The special cameras produced in the past for aerial photography were large and intended for a large negative-format - frequently meaning high prices. The Hasselblad 500EL Data Camera with its Reseau plate produced a small and comparatively low-cost camera which gave satisfactory results in aerial photographic work.

I suggest you read up on the amount of Solar radiation on the Moon. I also suggest you read up on the amount of radiation the Space Shuttle can withstand while it is within the protective belts known as Van Allen. If the Space Shuttle ever left the protection of those belts it would face dire consequences and NASA simply won't allow it. Let me tell you something. If you stood on the Moon in direct sunlight you wouldn't live to tell the tale buddy.Do you think that the NASA spacesuit they had on, through a little reflective colouring and a controlled pressure could stop radiation that will microwave you alive?Behave sunshine.You can be burned to hell in 20 minutes here on Earth in the hottest climate and thats with the atmosphere protecting you. The Moon has hundreds of times more microwave, untraviolet, gamma and alpha particles attacking you than here on earth with no atmosphere to protect you. You wouldn't last 5 minutes before you would be cremated and all your suit totally superheated like an oven.Who are you trying to kid my friend?You need to stop posting written data and specs then think about what your implying with suggestions of going to the Moon...maff

Logged

another_someone

I suggest you read up on the amount of Solar radiation on the Moon. I also suggest you read up on the amount of radiation the Space Shuttle can withstand while it is within the protective belts known as Van Allen. If the Space Shuttle ever left the protection of those belts it would face dire consequences and NASA simply won't allow it.

Are you suggesting that no space vehicle has ever left the protection of the Van Allen belts?

In any case, what problems exist with regard to Van Allen belts is more so about passing through the belts rather than what is beyond them. In any case, the Van Allen belts only effect charged particles, and make zero difference to electromagnetic radiation.

Do you think that the NASA spacesuit they had on, through a little reflective colouring and a controlled pressure could stop radiation that will microwave you alive?

I am still waiting for you to provide some data to support this suggestion?

In fact, even the Earth's atmosphere provides very little protection against microwave radiation, which is why we can actually measure the cosmic background microwave radiation here on Earth (through the atmosphere), and do lots of other radio astronomy in the microwave region. If there were such intense natural microwave radiation coming in, then all our radio telescopes would be blinded by it (and we would be fried by it here on Earth).

BTW, it is only a thin conductive coating and metal grill that protects you from the microwaves within a microwave oven - it is sufficient.

Maff you are talking total rubbish. As you always do. so much rubbish that it is just not worth the effort of pointing this out to you in detail. Your entire aim is to start and create arguments about fatuous and irrelevant subjects. I would reccommend other users to ignore it and put some effort into more interesting and relevant topics.

The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science® are registered trademarks.
Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors
and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators,
sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large.